Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2023

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members and witnesses will be appearing virtually using Zoom and with us here in the room.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and please address comments through the chair. You have the option of using the official language of your choice. If interpretation services discontinue, please get my attention. We'll suspend while they are corrected.

As well, I would like to remind all participants that screenshots are not allowed to be taken in the room or on the screen.

Also, for those appearing virtually, unless you're using an approved House of Commons headset that allows the interpreters to interpret your presentation, I will not recognize you to participate verbally, although those members of the committee appearing virtually will still have the option to vote.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee will continue its study of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

Tests have all been done, Mr. Clerk, on the connectivity and the equipment, so we're okay to go.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questioning. I would remind the witnesses that after five minutes I will advise you to conclude your comments so that members of the committee have time to question you.

Appearing virtually, we have the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, with Hélène Gosselin, the chair; the Canadian Labour Congress, with Bea Bruske, president, and Vicky Smallman, national director, human rights, by video conference; and here in the room with us, we have Child Care Now, with Morna Ballantyne, executive director.

We'll begin with Madame Gosselin.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Hélène Gosselin, Chair, Board of Directors, Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

My name is Hélène Gosselin and I am chair of the board of directors of the Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, or AQCPE.

As an early childhood expert, the AQCPE provides leadership, representation, outreach and support of a quality system of educational child care centres and coordinating offices, commonly known as CPEs and BCs, for children aged 0 to 5 years. Thank you for inviting us to testify about Quebec's early childhood experience as part of the study of Bill C‑35.

In 1996, Quebecers were asked to make a considerable effort. It was the time of “zero deficits”. However, then-premier Lucien Bouchard knew that to achieve his goal, Quebecers would need to be given tools to enable them to participate actively in Quebec's productivity. The rest, as they say, is history.

Today, recent events have served as powerful reminders of the essential character of child education services. The pandemic and the widespread labour shortage propelled what was considered “nice to have” to “must have”. This recognition can also be found in the preamble to the bill, which contains findings from the Quebec experience, as well as from the many longitudinal studies on the positive impacts of such a measure:

… the Government of Canada … recogniz(es) the beneficial impact of early learning on child care and child development, on the well-being of children and of families, on gender equality, on the rights of women and their economic participation and prosperity and on Canada's economy and social infrastructure ...

This is welcome official recognition. Similarly, the guiding principles that led to the creation of the network of educational child care centres—affordable, inclusive and high-quality services—are also included.

Of all of these, our focus here is on the principle of quality. Why are we interested in quality services? Because it is not just a matter of work‑family life balance. Taking care of toddlers means much more than just making sure they are looked after and safe. Trained staff working in the CPE/BC network are not extensions of the home. It is a real social fabric that we wrap around children and their families, enabling them to develop their full potential.

In some cases, it means overcoming a language delay to ensure better educational success. In others, it enables the family to break the cycle of poverty. There are as many examples as there are testimonials, but each has its significance and impacts our society. Child development professionals are able to recognize subtle cues, and to do so at several levels simultaneously. That requires adapted training, specific skills and abilities.

It is also referred to as “structural quality”: the settings, equipment and management that support educational staff, links with other organizations that work with families and links with the health and social services network. To achieve the objectives, experience has also shown us that only one model can fulfill this mandate. The network of early childhood centres was built on community-based, non-profit day care centres, a model for and by the community, managed by boards primarily made up of parent-users and independent of financial considerations, all exclusively for the benefit of children.

This structure directly affects the level of quality offered. Since Quebec implemented the mandatory quality assessment, we are able to rank the different models. A clear difference between for-profit and CPE models emerges. Even with identical funding, as is currently the case between CPEs and subsidized private day care centres, the difference is 30% in favour of CPEs.

However, the network has been driven by political trends and its development has been chaotic. This has led to the proliferation of models and in so doing curtailed the positive impact. Thus, we are reaching out to our counterparts in other provinces: You now have the opportunity to choose the model that will enable you to achieve your early childhood education goals. This decision must be clear, scientifically based and impervious to political interference.

Finally, the desire to secure investments in early childhood is, in our view, an acknowledgement of how important that funding is to people.

While respecting provincial jurisdictions, we see in this bill a bulwark against economic and political uncertainty. Quebec's experience and the many studies, both national and international, speak with one voice: It is a win-win situation when a society invests in early childhood, and we hope that you, parliamentarians, will move in that direction.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gosselin.

Ms. Bruske, you have five minutes.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. My name is Bea Bruske. I'm the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and I'm pleased to speak on behalf of Canada's largest labour organization, representing three million workers from every sector of our economy.

The CLC supports Bill C-35 as an important building block in the effort to establish a truly pan-Canadian system of quality, affordable, accessible, inclusive, public and not-for-profit child care.

Canada's unions have been advocating for child care for decades, and we know that it is good for families, good for children and good for our economy. We also know that it is essential for enabling women's labour force participation. If done right, it could be a very important source of quality jobs in a sector that has traditionally been dominated by women, and often Black, indigenous and racialized women, new Canadians and migrant women.

Unions were excited, quite frankly, when the long-term funding was established in the 2021 federal budget, and we were hopeful when the multilateral early learning and child care framework and bilateral agreements were reached with the provinces and territories. However, we know that the devil is always in the details and, along with others in the child care sector, we have expressed some misgivings that there were not enough teeth in these agreements to ensure the outcomes of the new system meet the very high expectations of the parents, workers and communities, and that there was some risk that the effort might result in the further entrenchment of our patchwork, market-based system.

We have a chance to get this right, and that's why this legislation is so very important.

Unions believe that everyone should have the right to the care they need, and that includes the right to early learning and to child care. We further believe that decent work for people working in the sector, whether they're early childhood educators, cooks, administrators, cleaners or others, is deeply connected to the quality of learning and the care that our children receive and our families depend on. We were pleased to see that references to rights are included in this legislation, including the references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We also like it that the legislation clearly lays out the government's commitment to system building and to enshrining a set of core principles to guide the development of such a system, recognizing the roles of the provinces and territories, as well as those of the indigenous peoples, and the need for programs and services for first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families that are culturally appropriate and led by indigenous peoples.

We were very pleased to see the reference to public and not-for-profit early learning and child care, and we urge the committee to support this language. There is considerable evidence that public and not-for-profit programs and services deliver higher-quality care and better jobs for child care workers, and we do not believe that the diversion of public funds to private interests will help us build the affordable, accessible system that families have been waiting for.

We also support the references in paragraph 7(1)(c) regarding the need for “respect” and valuing “diversity” and meeting the “varying needs” of children and families. Although the text of the bill does mention “inclusive” programs, the need for programs and services that meet the needs of children with disabilities is not explicitly stated, and perhaps it should be.

We are glad to see the reference to a “qualified and well-supported” workforce in paragraph 7(1)(d). We believe it could be further strengthened by more specific reference to what “well-supported” might mean in practice, including decent working conditions, proper compensation commensurate with qualifications, experience, access to ongoing training and other measures necessary to recruit and retain workers. Child care workers have been sounding the alarm about the staffing crisis, and if the system is going to expand to meet the growing needs of families and the ambitious plans of government, a clear workforce strategy is absolutely essential.

We're also pleased to see the legislation enshrine the establishment of the national advisory council on early learning and child care. Ideally, we would like to see workers represented on this council as well. I don't believe that is currently the case; however, that could be something that could be addressed in regulation or practice rather than in legislation.

We would support any amendments aimed at making the functions of the council more concrete or more specific: for example, requiring meaningful consultations with stakeholders, including unions representing child care workers. The council could and also might be more directly mandated to assess progress and implementation of this legislation. Finally, the bill could be strengthened by a requirement for adequate funding to sustain the council's work.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Bruske.

Madam Ballantyne, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Morna Ballantyne, Executive Director, Child Care Now]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee.

I'm a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care, but I speak to you today as the executive director of Child Care Now, Canada's national child care advocacy organization.

Early childhood education in Canada is far from what it should be. It's unavailable in many communities. Where it's available, wait-lists are long. The quality of programs is uneven. Although parent fees have dropped dramatically over the last year, licensed child care remains unaffordable for too many.

These problems result from the failure of past governments at all levels. For too long they refused responsibility for the provision of early learning and child care, relying instead on private individuals and organizations to set up programs on either a for-profit or a not-for-profit basis. This has meant unplanned, uneven and under supply.

Also, for far too long inadequate public funding has forced service providers to charge high service fees, putting licensed child care out of the financial reach of most families. At the same time, the parent fee revenue collected has never been sufficient to properly compensate educators for their work and to ensure decent working and learning conditions. This is why the child care sector has suffered from a perpetual problem of high staff turnover and it's why it's so difficult to recruit educators to the sector, especially graduates from early childhood education programs.

Almost always governments have responded to these problems ineffectively through short-term patchwork solutions such as salary top-ups, subsidies for some parents and inadequate operating grants of various kinds.

Child care advocates in Canada cheered when the Government of Canada proposed in budget 2021 to spend just under $30 billion over five years to transform early learning and child care. We celebrated the funding agreements with the provinces and territories, and we welcomed Bill C-35 because it affirms the federal government's long-term commitment to fund early learning and child care and to establish with the provinces and territories systems that could eventually realize every child's right to quality early childhood education.

Going by the experience of other countries, it will take many years to reach the goal declared in paragraph 6(a) of Bill C-35, to have a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that gives all families access to affordable, inclusive, high-quality early learning and child care programs regardless of where they live.

It will take time and it will take spending federal money in the right way on the right things.

That's why in our written submission we propose ways to strengthen the principles in clause 7 of Bill C-35 that are intended to guide federal investments. It's why we also suggest ways to strengthen the accountability mechanisms in the bill.

Unfortunately, I don't have time in my five minutes to expand on our proposed changes, but I do want to take my last minute to emphasize what we don't want changed.

We agree fully with the language in paragraph 7(1)(a) that supports the expansion of early learning and child care operated on a public and not-for-profit basis. It is consistent with the Canada-wide early learning and child care funding agreements agreed to by every province and territory, and it fulfills the promise made in the 2021 budget that was adopted by Parliament.

Federal public funds should be directed to expanding the provision of high-quality early learning and child care, not to expanding opportunities to make private profit or to increasing the equity of privately held real estate and other business assets.

Also, evidence from Canada and internationally tells us that not-for-profit and public early learning and child care providers are generally of higher quality and are more reliable and that public and not-for-profit child care systems are better at serving low-income families.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne.

We will now open the floor for discussion, beginning with Ms. Ferreri for six minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Ballantyne, thank you for being here. I know you have worked in this field for a long time and I know you have pointed out a lot of issues we have in child care.

I guess right off the bat we just don't have the accessibility, right? We don't have access. We have so many people still waiting to access it, as you outlined.

I'm asking, I guess, if you're open to the idea that all sectors, specifically those that meet the provincial and territorial standards regardless of business model, have a role to play in providing high-quality accessible child care for Canada.

[Morna Ballantyne]

The position of our organization is that existing for-profit providers—which I assume is what you're getting at—that are licensed should be able to access the federal funding. We don't support the expansion of public support for unlicensed child care. We don't think the federal funding should be used to expand the for-profit sector. In this way, we would both recognize the contribution that has been made by those who have established themselves as providers and move towards the aim of a primarily not-for-profit and public system, which is particularly important as public funding for the system increases.

With a reduction in parent fees and the replacement of parent-fee income with public funds, we're seeing a system that will be almost totally publicly funded. We want to make sure now that every dollar that's possible goes towards expanding the provision of services, not to profit.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you for that.

I think that if we want to close the gap—because the demand has increased, and it's obviously going to increase tremendously with the affordability piece—what's still missing is the accessibility piece. Based on the numbers that you know, there's no way to close the gap without incentivizing all forms of quality, licensed or standardized care, care that meets the standards of the province or territory. Do you think that would be a good amendment to include so that we can meet the need of families across Canada?

[Morna Ballantyne]

We fully support increasing access through the expansion of licensed child care. However, I would disagree with your premise that it's not possible to make licensed child care accessible to all without resorting to funding a for-profit sector.

We know from other countries that, in fact, it is very possible to achieve a universal child care system of a very high quality exclusively through expanding, in a very deliberate and conscious way, the provision of not-for-profit and public child care.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

I would strongly disagree because, right now, we have 200,000 children just in Ontario alone who are on that wait-list.

Ms. Gosselin, I think the Quebec model is a wonderful way for us to understand what we can do better moving forward. There are still 70,000 children on a waiting list to access child care. What can we do with this bill to ensure that we don't have that same wait-list so that people aren't left out in the cold, so that they have access to quality, affordable child care?

[Hélène Gosselin]

Thank you.

Yes, the waiting lists are long in Quebec because we suspended development projects for a decade. If they hadn't been put on hold and we had continued to develop services rather than cut budgets, we would have been able to meet the demand more quickly, and that would have prevented people from ending up on a waiting list.

At the moment, we're facing accelerated development, but also a labour shortage, much like all employment sectors across society. However, there's a way to offer many services, and Quebec is making that plain. We're currently in accelerated development, and CPEs are part of that. Given Quebec's plan to develop services in prefabricated CPEs with high quality standards, we also have faster development projects that aim to provide more places for children who are waiting.

When the family policy was introduced in Quebec, things moved very quickly in terms of development as of 1998. However, things came to a standstill. If that hadn't happened, there wouldn't be so many children awaiting services in Quebec.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much for that.

I think what we want here, as a lot of us have said, is to make this as non-partisan as possible. Child care shouldn't be a partisan issue. We want access, and that is the pillar of this bill.

I'm still not seeing the data. If we look at these messages, we see the following: “Even after-school care, my daughter has been on a wait-list for almost three years, and we still haven't gotten a space yet.” There's another message from Katie that says, “My son has been on a wait-list for two and a half years.”

I guess what I'm asking for is how we incentivize and not divide. This is for you, Ms. Ballantyne: How do we not divide the two sectors? They're both very important in providing that quality child care and access that we desperately need to reduce these wait-lists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Please give a very short answer.

[Morna Ballantyne]

Well, we certainly don't want to decrease access. We want to try to maintain the current supply and expand on it, but when we're looking at how we expand, we have to think about the kinds of strategies that are going to work.

In the past, what governments have done is exactly what you're proposing to do: to hope that individuals will be incentivized, primarily through the profit motive, to set up shop. That actually has led to the problem we have now, which is inequitable access and the lack of child care in many communities, particularly in communities that can't contribute to making a business work, particularly for profit.

It's so much better to put the public money into expanding a public and not-for-profit system and to do it in a planned and deliberate way to address the access issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ballantyne.

Madam Saks, you have six minutes.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Ballantyne, I think I'll expand on where you got cut short on time, because there is a lot of concern about how we balance the demand for spaces.

I'd like to talk about the importance of non-profit care. In your opening remarks, you alluded to the evidence in systems that are built on a non-profit model. I'd like to give you the opportunity to expand on that a bit.

[Morna Ballantyne]

Well, I think the other witness from Quebec, in her testimony, gave a very good example of what happens.

In Quebec, we actually have three systems. We have a government-supported not-for-profit system, a government-supported for-profit sector, and then a private system that is supported through tax credits by giving money directly to parents.

What we know from the evidence of research that's being done is that the quality is best in the subsidized not-for-profit sector, in what are known as “centres de la petite enfance”.

Moreover, as the other witness said, it's not just a question of funding, because even where the funding is the same for the for-profit subsidized sector and the centres de la petite enfance, the quality is better.

The other thing that's really important is that if you have a publicly managed and publicly funded system it can be expanded in a way that really meets the public needs. The public interest comes first, and that's what has to happen.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I'd like to just pierce to points that we heard here today on that.

There's an argument that the private sector is more nimble in building out spaces. A simple yes or no: Would you agree or disagree with that?

[Morna Ballantyne]

Well, the for-profit private sector has put at the top of their list the need to survive as a business entity, which means making a profit, so it will inevitably go into neighbourhoods and communities where that's possible.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I have a second question.

In terms of quality of care in the for-profit sector, there are some that say the for-profits can offer high-quality care, unique services, specific art space and so on and so forth. I know that in my riding of York Centre the Jewish community has a wonderful not-for-profit day care that's actually inclusive of the entire community, regardless of religion or background. What would you say to that in terms of quality of care and for-profit versus non-profit?

[Morna Ballantyne]

I would say that the not-for-profit and public sector is ideally positioned to give very high-quality care, because every dollar of public funding will go to ensuring that high-quality services are provided.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to lean in a bit more in terms of ECE workers and the pay model. There's been much discussion about wage grids. Each province submitted one in terms of their agreement. This is sort of the last piercing of the debate that ECEs in the for-profit sector would be paid better or that there would be wage respect that currently.... There is much advocacy on that in terms of enhancing the wages of ECEs, but does the evidence show that a for-profit would pay better than the not-for-profits, or is it the inverse?

[Morna Ballantyne]

This is my opportunity to reinforce that we need a lot more data. The research we have suggests that in fact wages on average are poorer in the for-profit sector, and I would also let you know that parent fees are higher.